In the April 2019 elections in Indonesia, the incumbent president, Mr. Joko Widodo, was pitched against former general Mr. Prabowo Subianto. Mr. Widodo won his first term with a strong human rights agenda that was supported by thousands of human rights activists. In his 2019 campaign, the focus was on the country’s economic development. During this campaign, authoritarian tools were widely used to stifle criticism of the incumbent. The human rights movement became strongly polarized between adherents of the two presidential candidates. Both camps waged a fierce social media war in which hoaxes and slander were spread. The political blocs quickly reconciled after the elections, striving for a politics based on consensus. Army factions and Muslim parties that had supported the different sides also soon closed ranks. However, the fracturing of the human rights movement into two opposing camps remained also after the elections. This led to its enervation in relation to several illiberal immediate post-election reforms. In this article, I focus on four cases to analyse the divisive dynamics within the human rights movement. These are the post-October 1965 genocide, the weakening of the Anti-Corruption Commission, the revision of the Criminal Code, and the Anti-Sexual Violence Bill. Problems of solidarity politics will be pointed out. I will examine some hoaxes in social media as they are informative of the discourse in this heated period. The human rights debate between the two candidates on 17 January 2019 will also be discussed. Although external factors such as the growing influence of conservative majoritarian Islam played a major role in the inability of the human rights movement to stop the weakening of the Anti-Corruption Commission, and the deliberations on the revision of the Criminal Code, I focus here on the fragmentation and polarization of the movement and the failure of the participants to engage in affinity politics based on shared interests.